1 / 25

Building Bridges with Families: The Power of Reciprocity

Building Bridges with Families: The Power of Reciprocity . Equity Forum Equity Alliance at ASU Beth Harry Professor, Special Education University of Miami March 1, 2011 (Adapted from Kalyanpur & Harry, Culture in Special Education: Building Reciprocal Relationships with Familie s).

truong
Download Presentation

Building Bridges with Families: The Power of Reciprocity

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Building Bridges with Families: The Power of Reciprocity Equity Forum Equity Alliance at ASU Beth Harry Professor, Special Education University of Miami March 1, 2011 (Adapted from Kalyanpur & Harry, Culture in Special Education: Building Reciprocal Relationships with Families)

  2. Central Assumption: Culture Pervades Everything We Do • Cultural beliefs underlie • legal requirements (e.g., IDEA built on principles of individualism and equity) • knowledge base (e.g., science, not spirituality, explains and treats disability) • practice (e.g., goal setting, interaction style, beliefs about “good parenting”

  3. Cultural Underpinnings of Special Education Law • IDEA AS A CULTURAL STATEMENT • Individualism: choice, equity • Scientific explanations of disability • Professional vs. everyday knowledge • CONTRASTING CULTURAL TRADITIONS • Collective concepts of self: group needs • Spiritual interpretations of disability • Conflict: professional/everyday knowledge

  4. Cultural Reciprocity • cultural reciprocity: respecting and learning about other cultures while sharing information with families regarding American culture • key is cultural self-awareness

  5. The Cultural Reciprocity Process • Step 1: Reflect on personal biases and assumptions driving your own recommendations • Step 2: Invite, question, listen to parents’ perspective • Step 3: Explain service provider’s perspective • Step 4: Identify common ground and develop collaborative goals

  6. 3 Parent-Professional Conflicts Resulting from Cultural Differences • parents in denial: won’t face facts! • no parent participation: they don’t care about children’s education! • problem comes from home: it’s cultural!

  7. Complaint # I: “They’re in Denial” FOUR reasons: • more intimate and more nuanced knowledge of the child • cultural definitions of what’s “normal” • spiritual vs. physical interpretations • individual vs. group identity within families • “in disagreement” rather than “denial”

  8. Disagreement #1: Intimate Parental Knowledge • parents have more intimate and nuanced knowledge of child’s skills than school personnel • traits and abilities may not be displayed at school: importance of context • professionals often quick to discount parent reports • remember parents know child better than you do!

  9. Disagreement # 2: Cultural Definitions of Disability • disagreement between parents and professionals related to different cultural definitions of disability • different parameters of “normalcy” based on cultural/SES expectations • cultural change over time

  10. Disagreement # 3: Physical vs. Spiritual Definitions • parents may interpret the cause of child’s condition as spiritual rather than physical • physical condition reflects spiritual meaning • western belief in science emphasizes physical/medical causes and treatments

  11. Disagreement # 4: Individual vs. Group Constructions of Identity • American individualism leads to interpretation that disability belongs entirely to individual, not family • many other groups: a collective sense of identity results in parents seeking explanations of differences within recent or past family history

  12. Complaint #2: They Won’t Come to Meetings! Four reasons: • built-in conflict between call for collaboration and belief in professional “expertise” • histories of alienation • alienating professional language • alienating interaction processes

  13. Reason #1: Role Expectations – Professional/Family Views • professional training reflects belief in expertise in diagnosis and treatment • difficult for professionals to recognize parents as experts with their children • belief in scientific knowledge vs. everyday knowledge • democratic vs. hierarchical expecations

  14. Reason #2: Historical Issues • history of exclusion of African Americans from mainstream education, and of integration into unwelcoming school systems, resulted in deep mistrust of school authorities • school authorities have responsibility of building trust, not assuming that it has been earned

  15. Reason #3: Professional Spoken Language • objectified”: ”service delivery system” • medicalized: “auditory, visual, perceptual” (listening, looking, interpreting) • abstracted: “manipulatives” (toys, materials) • incomprehensible jargon • translation issues

  16. Power of the Written Word • reinforces value of professional pronouncements about children • written findings in reports reinforce impressions of validity • process of reification: profile of deficiency • parents with low literacy/limited English proficiency find school letters intimidating

  17. Reason #4: Participation Structures • manner of conducting conferences often contradicts ideal of participation • studies of parent participation at conferences show clear hierarchy: • parent vs. professional introductions • order, style, and timing of reports • parent input limited or not invited till end • disrespectful, inattentive interactions • no translators or poor translation

  18. Complaint # 3: “It Comes from the Home!” • Three discrepant views: • family structure, roles and authority patterns • family interactions: enmeshment vs. disengagement (individuality vs. collectivism) • independence, work, and individuality

  19. View #1: Family Structure, Roles, Authority • mainstream model of family structure in America not a reality for many • nuclear family (“intact” family) increasingly rare in America • focus on “risk” • little recognition of “resilience”

  20. View #2: Family Structure and Interactions • assumption: family interaction style should reflect American ideal of independence and individuality • theories of ideal family interaction: balance “enmeshment” and “disengagement” • assumptions about authority patterns and discipline practices

  21. View #3: “Independence” • a key goal on IFSP/IEP e.g., breast or bottle feeding • transition goals from adolescence to adulthood • independence vs. interdependence • friends who are not family members • training for supported employment

  22. CONCLUSIONS • does not matter whether we agree with unfamiliar parental views • what matters is that we recognize our views are reflections of our culture • so are the views of the parents! • remembering this, we can listen with respect, without negative judgment that shows on our faces and in our voices

  23. Daily Cultural Clashes • Subtle, implicit, unacknowledged • Tone of voice • Facial expression • Disagreement interpreted as denial • Belief that parents don’t care • Detrimental home environments • No first-hand knowledge of the home

  24. Parents’ Responses • refusal to respond to invitations • say “yes” • silence

  25. FINAL WORD • Next time you hear yourself or a colleague utter one of these exclamations, STOP and say to yourself or your friend: • Denial? Or disagreement? • They don’t come because they don’t care? Or because they don’t feel needed or respected? • Say, “so their behavior is “cultural?” So is mine!

More Related